Command the Raven

From Rubin Reports.Blogspot.Com

<

A Totally Different Approach on the “Ground Zero Mosque” Controversy

Posted: 06 Sep 2010 11:29 PM PDT

Please be subscriber 17,364. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

As someone interested in the non-political aspects of the Ground Zero Mosque (business plan, zoning, financing, etc) I’m reaching the conclusion that what’s most important is not to oppose or support construction of the mosque but to understand it. In other words, there can be people who passionately  favor this project but who can still learn a lot from the whole affair.

Let me summarize the two key lessons that get pushed aside in the “build-or-no-build” debate:

–The main problem in such matters is not discrimination against such promoters–certainly not from government and mass media–but special privileges for them. Even if someone favors building the project, he should be able to see that the government and media have done everything possible to support it and kill off any serious debate on the issues.

–Radical Islamists constantly hide as moderates, depending in large part on the disinterest of government, media, or academia in investigating their background and credentials. Even if he feels this should have nothing to do with building the mosque project, an observer should understand that point. Every time the imam and his wife–who is a key leader of the project–have had the chance to build bridges, express moderation, and persuade critics, they have inflamed the situation and taken a hard line.

As I said a moment ago, you can understand these two points–and draw appropriate conclusions–even if you favor building the project.

To a great extent, this whole controversy did not arise as some Muslim triumphalist project but rather as the result of a sleazy, rather erratic developer seeking respectability and fame who sold it to an ambitious, Islamist-oriented imam as something that would make him a big star with incredible money and power. And of course that power and fame might then be used to promote his Islamist agenda.

So let’s forget for the moment about favoring or opposing construction of this massive project and merely evaluate it without taking any position on the issue. Here’s what we see: rather than being the victim of discrimination, the mosque project was the beneficiary of special privilege that would not have been accorded to someone else, all other things being equal.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t larger implications regarding the site of the mosque and what reactions to the project might show about Islamist goals, American attitudes toward Islam or political Islamism, and constitutional guarantees regarding freedom of religion. Those points, however, has been discussed by many. Here is what hasn’t:

If it had not been for the special privileges accorded to it, the project would never have gotten off the ground. It doesn’t own all the property that it proposes to build on and had not even consulted the owner, Consolidated Edison electric company; it doesn’t have the financing nor indeed any clear prospect of obtaining it;, and the developer has an extremely poor record of legal problems.

The imam himself is rather shady or at least shadowy. Among other things he got a tax exemption for a mosque of allegedly 500 members supposedly located in a small apartment owned by his wife. (Hint: When a purported religious institution gives its address as “Apartment 10E” that might suggest it isn’t a large ongoing institution.)  Does that mean that all Christian ministers are lilly-pure? No, but whatever their moral standing or theological views if they want to build a huge church project they better meet the requirements of the jurisdiction or they shouldn’t be allowed to pour concrete.

No, contrary to popular belief you cannot build whatever you want wherever you want, even if that building is religious. There are city ordinances, zoning, and lots of other regulations. And there are good reasons for these rules.

In this context, with everything else remaining the same, no church or synagogue  project would have been approved for this site, under these conditions, and with the group running the project. We should note that nine years after the September 11 attacks, the city authorities have been so picky that there has been virtually no progress made on building anything in the World Trade Center area! A Greek Orthodox Church nearby has not been allowed to rebuild at all, while watching the fast-tracking of the mosque project.

Now that’s a total failure due to paralyzing bureaucracy and lack of vision, isn’t it? Yet in the case of this project everything was greenlighted with no questions asked. The authorities went from insanely restrictive to insanely permissive because they wanted to be tolerant, or feared be called bigots. Both such extremes of behavior are deeply wrong. They are supposed to make decisions on the merits of the case.

The problem with all this is neither Islamist subversive efforts nor Islamophobia but the mistakes resulting from when a society throws out all of its own normal, routine rules (equal justice under law) to give privileges to a group out of fear, manipulation, and misplaced guilt.
By saying this, I’m not ignoring the sanctity of the site, the Constitution, or other issues but merely focusing on something else that is indeed worth discussing outside of such considerations.

Up until now, 242 mosques have been built in New York State without any serious opposition or protest. No problem. But in this particular case, even if the sponsors had wanted to build this particular mosque uptown, it should have been blocked on normal grounds. If the project had gone ahead without any political opposition it is likely that it would not have been able to get financing (or had to resort to such unsavory sources as to discredit itself), would have gone into bankruptcy, and left behind a tangled business mess.

This story is also a tale of the limits of moderation for any Muslim leader who wants to be well-funded and popular. At best, Rauf is someone who fears saying anything that would make Islamists unhappy; at worst, he’s himself a radical Islamist. It’s true that his letters to the Wall Street Journal and New York Times are 30 years old. Yet the imam of the Ground Zero mosque today evades answering whether his views have changed since then and there is no evidence of a break with that past.

In one letter, he endorses Iran’s revolution. There is a significant point here that has gone unnoticed. Rauf’s public cheering of the revolution came at the precise moment when its extremism had become clear: the total takeover of the state by radical Islamists, the expulsion of even moderate Muslims from power, the suppression of the secular left. He wasn’t endorsing the overthrow of the shah or the emergence of democracy but the triumph of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and everything that entailed.

In another letter, he suggests that peace plus Muslim patience will result in Israel becoming just another Arab-dominated country. Here, too, his precise approach is revealing. One could argue that he was trying to assure Muslims that they should make peace with Israel since, after all, that would more effectively produce total victory for them. But by presenting peace as a trick to destroy Israel, he was proclaiming an uncomfortable parallel for what radical Islamists do secretly in the West, using pretenses of compromise and moderation to seize power. The different versions of his book also raises suspicions of his true beliefs and intentions, as do many of his other actions.

The imam could have replied to these and other issues with an approach fitting the moderation and bridge-building approach he and his wife claim to represent. He could have said:  Yes, I endorsed the Iranian revolution at first but then on seeing how extreme and repressive the regime became, I concluded that it wasn’t my view of what Islam is, nor do I favor an Islamist theocratic form of government.

But he didn’t say that.  Does he really endorse the Iranian regime as an exemplification of his type of Islam, or does he just hope to raise money from it for the project, or is he merely wary of criticizing anything Islamist or Islamic? If he had done so, it would have undermined the criticism and won plaudits from many Americans. Yet that is not his priority.

Similarly, he could have said about Israel that he once favored its destruction, albeit by political means, but now some years later sees this isn’t a realizable idea and favors a genuine two-state solution. He could argue that peace and a quick compromise solution is in the Palestinians’ interest.

But he didn’t say that. Instead, he dodged the question. So does he endorse Israel’s destruction, simply know that favoring a real and lasting peace would antagonize radical Islamists, or fear that the type of people or regime from whom he wants to raise money will be turned off? Again, it amounts to the same thing in practice.

His main concern, then, is not to reassure Americans or to build bridges but to say nothing that would definitively show he isn’t a radical or an Islamist. Of course, he could argue that he can get away with this since those supporting his project don’t pay any attention to such issues and that those who oppose it are demonized by the government and in the media.

Yet such phony (or limited) moderation was sufficient to make him the toast of New York for many in the elite. Meanwhile, real and courageous moderate Muslims, a number of whom oppose the mosque, are largely shunned in the West.

Faced with criticism, the imam’s wife, one of the project’s leaders, lashed out to bash America and Americans in general. She could just as easily have taken the approach: look at all the wonderful people supporting us. Isn’t America great? There are people opposing us? That’s what democratic debate is about. And it’s my job to convince them, answer their concerns and by transparency soothe their worries. Isn’t that what bridge-building is all about?

Instead, he and his wife played the Islamophobia card about how terrible America is. By escalating the conflict and condemning, rather than trying to persuade, their critics they have damaged America’s image among Muslims and deepened divisions within the United States. They also refused to consider a change of location. One could argue they shouldn’t have been required to make such a concession but wouldn’t that choice have better served their purported goals?

If you are going to undertake the controversial and delicate task of building a Muslim center right next to Ground Zero shouldn’t you be extra careful to make this a positive rather than divisive experience? Indeed, if those behind the project had truly been oriented toward moderation and mutual tolerance the project probably would have succeeded despite the opposition. After all, they had everyone who counted on their side–the city government and mass media. Complaints could easily be disregarded with the hope that success would prove they were misguided.

Instead, we are locked into a debate between the Building-on-This-Site-is-Offensive camp and Not- Letting-Them-Build-is-Islamophobic-Bigotry camp. As usual, partisanship obscures facts.

Should the mosque from being built? That’s an issue for others to debate. It doesn’t interest me as an analyst. After all, the argument over construction gets in the way of understanding the real issues involved. Whether or not it is built, or should be, there are important lessons to be learned here.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

From Rubin Reports.Blogspot.Com

Diplomats’ Dilemma: What to Do Other Than Appeasement or War When You’re Attacked?

Posted: 05 Sep 2010 12:28 PM PDT

By Barry Rubin

Diplomats, a British ambassador explained several centuries ago, are gentlemen sent abroad to lie for their country. I’d add that the problems start when they start to lie on behalf of other countries, while the disaster begins when they start to lie for enemies of their country.

Stefan Zweig, in a 1930 book, spoke of, “Diplomatists, who form a little understood but extremely dangerous variety of our human kind”

But diplomats and political leaders today also have real dilemmas, in some ways unresolvable ones. Here’s an example of how the problem works and bedevils Middle East policy and foreign policy generally.

A year ago, Britain released Abdel Baset al-Megrahi from prison and returned him to Libya. This was done nominally because a doctor said–the British government had to shop around until it found the right doctor–that he was dying. The real reason, apparently, was that this move helped British Petroleum get a big contract with Libya.

Today, though, Megrahi is doing well.  He isn’t dying at all. In fact, Libya celebrated the anniversary of his release and he was visited by son-of-dictator (and apparent successor) Saif Qadhafi.

The British government warned Libya that any such celebration would be “tasteless, offensive and deeply insensitive” as well as making it really, really angry. Libya didn’t care, ignored the threat, and Britain did nothing.

In short, a Western country looks weak, scared, and corrupt; and a repressive, hate-filled, terrorist-supporting dictatorship looks powerful and in control of the world. The signal thus sent leads to a world where democrats tremble and dictators romp.

Let’s take a step back and consider this as a case study. Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer, was given a 27-year prison sentence in 2001 for involvement in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, murdering 270 people, mostly U.S. citizens.

But of course Megrahi was just a scapegoat. He was acting in his capacity as a Libyan government official and in the end he took the rap like a loyal Mafia soldier. No doubt his family has been well provided for.

Still, the conclusion is obvious: The Libyan government ordered the bombing. Muammar Qadhafi and his regime are responsible for this terrorist act, just as the Iranian and Syrian governments are responsible for directly ordering numerous terrorist attacks.

Indeed, the U.S. attack on the Barbary pirates in the early nineteenth century–because they were attacking American ships and kidnapping those on board–precisely parallels the situation with Qadhafi two centuries later. It is also what the United States did in staging a single bombing raid on Libya in 1986 after that country sponsored a terror attack on a Berlin discotheque that killed two American soldiers and injured 200 people. That didn’t stop Qadhafi, but the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003 did frighten him into at least temporary “moderation.”

So what’s a victim country to do? The traditional response to such behavior is a military attack, perhaps the seizure of part of the aggressive company or even the occupation of its capital and the overthrow of the regime. The idea is that the threat is thus removed, the malefactors punished, and an example is given to deter future imitators.

One could say that this is what the United States did in Afghanistan and Iraq after September 11, with the former a response to the attack on the World Trade Center and the latter to Saddam Hussein’s frequent flouting of his previous agreements and reported pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Does this mean that the proper response to the Lockerbie attack should have been a coalition attack on Libya and the overthrow of the Qadhafi regime? And what about the Western attitude toward the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip? Compared to Iraq, removing the Hamas regime and putting the Palestinian Authority back in or bringing down Qadhafi would have been far easier and more justifiable, certainly more beneficial for regional stability and enhancing the chances for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Can a country act unilaterally to defend itself from terrorism or even direct aggression (in Israel’s case that applies to Hizballah in 2006 and Hamas in 2008). Must it await a UN resolution? Or can nothing be done at all, since avoiding civilian casualties or even violence altogether seems a higher priority nowadays than defending yourself or overthrowing a repressive, aggressive dictatorship.

These are difficult questions. The nineteenth-century British prime minister William Gladstone, who had to face such problems, remarked: “Interference in foreign countries, according to my mind, should be rare, deliberate, decisive in character, and effectual for its end.” When Sudanese Islamist forces were closing in on Khatroum in 1884-85, set to massacre not only the British-led Egyptian force sent to protect the population there but also thousands of Sudanese Muslim civilians, he didn’t want to act.

British public opinion was outraged after Khartoum fell and the subsequent massacre. Later British governments overthrow the Islamist regime and joined Sudan to its Egyptian dominion. That kind of behavior is derided today as imperialism.

A military response is no simple solution. It is expensive, long in duration, and causes casualties. Things go wrong. Military campaigns fail, planes crash, friendly fire kill your own troops, and bombs go astray and kill civilians.  Western news media will trumpet every misdeed or mistake. Violence cannot be used lightly.

Moreover, since deep-seated social and structural problems are at the root of what might be called the “dictator regions of the world” one does not see miraculous transformations. Also given the new kind of asymmetric warfare, radical regimes and movements welcome the death of their people and destruction of their infrastructure as a means of gaining sympathy and mobilizing forces.

Israel, at times attacked from all sides, with a supportive population (public opinion criticized the government response to the Lebanon war in 2006 as too soft),  insufficient international support, and little margin for error has understandably adopted a policy of retaliation to maintain credibility. Generally, this approach has worked.

Recently, an editor of an American newsmagazine, referring to Israel’s security fence against terrorism, remarked that “unfortunately” the barrier had worked. Unfortunately? Does he regret that terrorist attacks are foiled and lives saved? Presumably, he only regrets that the kind of solutions he doesn’t like does work. If power, force, energetic self-defense (rather than doing away with “root causes” of conflict, which is difficult to achieve when your enemies only want to tear you out by the roots) solve problems I guess he intends to ignore that fact rather than to revise his own views.

Nowadays, Israel taking the necessary steps to protect its security are inhibited not by domestic factors or their views but by an extremely low level of international backing, which would erode even further if Israel hit back too long or hard. In addition, Israel has no wish to retake the West Bank, Gaza Strip, or south Lebanon. And it knows that nothing it can do will end the conflict (through victory) or change the hearts of its enemies (through concessions).

That last point, by the way is generally misunderstood by, respectively, the foreign right and left, both of which entertain fantasies on these points. Neither violence nor peace-making offers a full solution, yet deterrence and credibility really do work, at least for a while. True, Hizballah and Hamas will want to fight again in future but that future can be postponed; Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO were pushed by Israel’s military pressure out of the conflict (as much as that can happen), while Syria is too fearful to fight on its own account (thus using Lebanon as a human shield).

The Western situation is quite different. To put it bluntly, governments can justify a policy in which anything short of a September 11 attack can largely be ignored or dealt with through types of appeasement. Accepting some mid-level intelligence guy as payment for Libyan terrorism was a form of appeasement, as were the lessons drawn by Britain and Spain as a result of major terrorist attacks in their capitals.

And while the United States did go to war with both Afghanistan (direct responsibility for September 11) and Iraq (violation of commitments, sponsoring terrorism, believed (rightly or wrongly?) to be developing nuclear weapons) we all see where that ended up. The outcome includes years of war, billions of dollars, and a sharp shift in the political orientation of the United States resulting in its current government.

If one brings in Third World democracies, India was powerless to deal with Pakistan which had obviously sponsored a huge terror attack in Mumbai. South Korea has its hands tied regarding North Korea; Thailand can’t do anything to counter support by at least provincial governments in Malaysia for terrorists in its southern region.

So where’s the line between going to war and letting aggressors walk all over you? One option is covert, deniable action. But even that seems out of favor in a West that prefers to turn the other cheek in the face of subversion, terrorism, and insult. It is bad enough when a contributing factor here is what might be called, in effect, an ideological fifth column. When that sector has a large measure of hegemony in academia, entertainment, media, and even government then traditional strategic behavior becomes close to impossible.

Yet refusal to react to aggression and terrorist subversion today only means one will have to respond to a greater threat from a more unfavorable starting point in future. Those who believe that “violence never works” are ensuring that it only works for the other side.

What then is the answer? A combination of things: having leaders who believe your country’s virtues outweigh its sins and think that its enemies are due more opposition than sympathy; clarity on the issues, a campaign to gain domestic support, verbal toughness, helping the enemies of one’s enemies, supporting one’s friends including those who are willing to fight in self-defense, sanctions, covert operations, and when necessary appropriate types of military action.

But first you need to know two simple things: you’ve got enemies and neither flattery nor apology nor concessions nor betraying your friends nor bashing yourself is going to change that fact.

Is that too much to ask?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Deuteronomy 6:17-25 [show/hide]Deuteronomy 6:17-25 [17]You shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and his testimonies and his statutes, which he has commanded you. [18]And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD, that it may go well with you, and that you may go in and take possession of the good land that the LORD swore to give to your fathers [19]by thrusting out all your enemies from before you, as the LORD has promised. [20]"When your son asks you in time to come, 'What is the meaning of the testimonies and the statutes and the rules that the LORD our God has commanded you?' [21]then you shall say to your son, 'We were Pharaoh's slaves in Egypt. And the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. [22]And the LORD showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes. [23]And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us in and give us the land that he swore to give to our fathers. [24]And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. [25]And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us.' (ESV)

17 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee.   18 And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORD: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers,   19 To cast out all thine enemies from before thee, as the LORD hath spoken.   20 And when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD our God hath commanded you?   21 Then thou shalt say unto thy son, We were Pharaoh’s bondmen in Egypt; and the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand:   22 And the LORD showed signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his household, before our eyes:   23 And he brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which he sware unto our fathers.   24 And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.   25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

Here, I. Moses charges them to keep God’s commandments themselves: You shall diligently keep God’s commandments, v. 17-19. Note, It requires a great deal of care and pains to keep up religion in the power of it in our hearts and lives. Negligence will ruin us; but we cannot be saved without diligence. To induce them to this, he here shows them,

1. That this would be very acceptable to God: it is right and good in the sight of the Lord; and that is right and good indeed that is, so in God’s sight. If we have any regard to the favour of our Creator as our felicity, and the law of our creation as our rule, we shall be religious.

2. That it would be very advantageous and profitable to themselves. It would secure to them the possession of the land of Canaan, prosperity there, and constant victory over those that stood in their way. In short, “Do well, and it shall be well with thee.“

II. He charges them to instruct their children in the commands of God, not only that they might in their tender years intelligently and affectionately join in religious services, but that afterwards they might in their day keep up religion, and convey it to those that should come after them. Now,

1. Here is a proper question which it is supposed the children would ask (v. 20): “What mean the testimonies and the statutes? What is the meaning of the feasts we observe, the sacrifices we offer, and the many peculiar customs we keep up?” Observe,

(1.) All divine institutions have a certain meaning, and there is something great designed in them.

(2.) It concerns us to know and understand the meaning of them, that we may perform a reasonable service and may not offer the blind for sacrifice.

(3.) It is good for children betimes to enquire into the true intent and meaning of the religious observances they are trained up in. If any are thus inquisitive in divine things it is a good sign that they are concerned about them, and a good means of their attaining to a great acquaintance with them. Then shall we know if thus we follow on to know.

2. Here is a full answer put into the parents’ mouths to be given to this good question. Parents and teachers must give instruction to those under their charge, though they do not ask it, nay, though they have an aversion to it; much more must they be ready to answer questions, and to give instruction when it is desired; for it may be hoped that those who ask it will be willing to receive it. Did the children ask the meaning of God’s laws? Let them be told that they were to be observed,

(1.) In a grateful remembrance of God’s former favours to them, especially their deliverance out of Egypt, v. 21-23. The children must be often told of the deplorable state their ancestors were in when they were bondmen in Egypt, the great salvation God wrought for them in fetching them out thence, and that God, in giving them these peculiar statutes, meant to perpetuate the memorial of that work of wonder, by which they were formed into a peculiar people.

(2.) As the prescribed condition of his further favours (v. 24): The Lord commanded us all these statutes for our good. Note, God commands us nothing but what is really for our good. It is our interest as well as our duty to be religious.

[1.] It will be our life: That he might preserve us alive, which is a great favour, and more than we could expect, considering how often we have forfeited life itself. Godliness has the promise of the continuance and comfort of the life that now is as far as it is for God’s glory.

[2.] It will be our righteousness. Could we perfectly fulfil but that one command of loving God with all our heart, soul, and might, and could we say, “We have never done otherwise,” this would be so our righteousness as to entitle us to the benefits of the covenant of innocency; had we continued in every thing that is written in the book of the law to do it, the law would have justified us. But this we cannot pretend to, therefore our sincere obedience shall be accepted through a Mediator to denominate us, as Noah was, righteous before God, Gen. 7:1; Luke 1:6; and 1 John 3:7. The Chaldee reads it, There shall be a reward to us if we observe to do these commandments; for, without doubt, in keeping God’s commandments there is great reward.

- Matthew Henry Commentary

Deuteronomy 6:4-16 [show/hide]Deuteronomy 6:4-16 [4]"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. [5]You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. [6]And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. [7]You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. [8]You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. [9]You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. [10]"And when the LORD your God brings you into the land that he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you--with great and good cities that you did not build, [11]and houses full of all good things that you did not fill, and cisterns that you did not dig, and vineyards and olive trees that you did not plant--and when you eat and are full, [12]then take care lest you forget the LORD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. [13]It is the LORD your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear. [14]You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are around you-- [15]for the LORD your God in your midst is a jealous God--lest the anger of the LORD your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth. [16]"You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah. (ESV)

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:   5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.   6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:   7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.   8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.   9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.   10 And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,   11 And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;   12 Then beware lest thou forget the LORD, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.   13 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.   14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;   15 (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.   16 Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

Here is, I. A brief summary of religion, containing the first principles of faith and obedience, v. 4, 5. These two verses the Jews reckon one of the choicest portions of scripture: they write it in their phylacteries, and think themselves not only obliged to say it at least twice every day, but very happy in being so obliged, having this saying among them, Blessed are we, who every morning and evening say, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. But more blessed are we if we duly consider and improve,

1. What we are here taught to believe concerning God: that Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.

(1.) That the God whom we serve is Jehovah, a Being infinitely and eternally perfect, self-existent, and self-sufficient.

(2.) That he is the one only living and true God; he only is God, and he is but one. The firm belief of this self-evident truth would effectually arm them against all idolatry, which was introduced by that fundamental error, that there are gods many. It is past dispute that there is one God, and there is no other but he, Mark 12:32. Let us therefore have no other, nor desire to have any other. Some have thought there is here a plain intimation of the trinity of persons in the unity of the Godhead; for here is the name of God three times, and yet all declared to be one. Happy they that have this one Lord for their God; for they have but one master to please, but one benefactor to seek to. It is better to have one fountain that a thousand cisterns, one all-sufficient God than a thousand insufficient ones.

2. What we are here taught concerning the duty which God requires of man. It is all summed up in this as its principle, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. He had undertaken (v. 2) to teach them to fear God; and, in pursuance of his undertaking, he here teaches them to love him, for the warmer our affection to him the greater will be our veneration for him; the child that honours his parents no doubt loves them. Did ever any prince make a law that his subjects should love him? Yet such is the condescension of the divine grace that this is made the first and great commandment of God’s law, that we love him, and that we perform all other parts of our duty to him from a principle of love. My son, give me thy heart. We must highly esteem him, be well pleased that there is such a Being, well pleased in all his attributes, and relations to us: our desire must be towards him, our delight in him, our dependence upon him, and to him we must be entirely devoted. It must be a constant pleasure to us to think of him, hear from him, speak to him, and serve him. We must love him,

(1.) As the Lord, the best of beings, most excellent and amiable in himself.

(2.) As our God, a God in covenant with us, our Father, and the most kind and bountiful of friends and benefactors. We are also commanded to love God with all our heart, and soul, and might; that is, we must love him,

[1.] With a sincere love; not in word and tongue only, saying we love him when our hearts are not with him, but inwardly, and in truth, solacing ourselves in him.

[2.] With a strong love; the heart must be carried out towards him with great ardour and fervency of affection. Some have hence though that we should avoid saying (as we commonly express ourselves) that we will do this or that with all our heart, for we must not do any thing with all our heart but love God; and that this phrase, being here used concerning that sacred fire, should not be unhallowed. He that is our all must have our all, and none but he.

[3.] With a superlative love; we must love God above any creature whatsoever, and love nothing besides him but what we love for him and in subordination to him.

[4.] With an intelligent love; for so it is explained, Mark 12:33. To love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, we must know him, and therefore love him as those that see good cause to love him.

[5.] With an entire love; he is one, and therefore our hearts must be united in this love, and the whole stream of our affections must run towards him. O that this love of God may be shed abroad in our hearts!

II. Means are here prescribed for the maintaining and keeping up of religion in our hearts and houses, that it might not wither and go to decay. And they are these:–

1. Meditation: These words which I command thee shall be in thy heart, v. 6. Though the words alone without the things will do us no good, yet we are in danger of losing the things if we neglect the words, by which ordinarily divine light and power are conveyed to the heart. God’s words must be laid up on our heart, that our thoughts may be daily conversant with them and employed about them, and thereby the whole soul may be brought to abide and act under the influence and impression of them. This immediately follows upon the law of loving God with all your heart; for those that do so will lay up his word in their hearts both as an evidence and effect of that love and as a means to preserve and increase it. He that loves God loves his Bible.

2. The religious education of children (v. 7): “Thou shalt teach them diligently to thy children; and by communicating thy knowledge thou wilt increase it.” Those that love the Lord God themselves should do what they can to engage the affections of their children to him, and so to preserve the entail of religion in their families from being cut off. Thou shalt whet them diligently upon thy children, so some read it; frequently repeat these things to them, try all ways of instilling them into their minds, and making them pierce into their hearts; as, in whetting a knife, it is turned first on this side, then on that. “Be careful and exact in teaching thy children; and aim, as by whetting, to sharpen them, and put an edge upon them. Teach them to thy children, not only those of thy own body” (say the Jews) “but all those that are anyway under thy care and tuition.” Bishop Patrick well observes here that Moses thought his law so very plain and easy that every father might be able to instruct his sons in it and every mother her daughters. Thus that good thing which is committed to us we must carefully transmit to those that come after us, that it may be perpetuated.

3. Pious discourse. “Thou shalt talk of these things, with due reverence and seriousness, for the benefit not only of thy children, but of thy other domestics, thy friends and companions, as thou sittest in thy house at work, or at meat, or at rest, or to receive visits, and when thou walkest by the way for diversion, or for conversation, of in journeys, when at night thou art retiring from thy family to lie down for sleep, and when in the morning thou hast risen up and returnest to thy family again. Take all occasions to discourse with those about thee of divine things; not of unrevealed mysteries, or matters of doubtful disputation, but of the plain truths and laws of God, and the things that belong to our peace.” So far is it from being reckoned a diminution to the honour of sacred things to make them subject of our familiar discourse that they are recommended to us to be talked of; for the more conversant we are with them the more we shall admire them and be affected with them, and may thereby be instrumental to communicate divine light and heat.

4. Frequent reading of the word: They shall be as frontlets between thy eyes, and thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, v. 8, 9. It is probable that at that time there were few written copies of the whole law, only at the feasts of tabernacles the people had it read to them; and therefore God appointed them, at least for the present, to write some select sentences of the law, that were most weighty and comprehensive, upon their walls, or in scrolls of parchment to be worn about their wrists; and some think that hence the phylacteries so much used among the Jews took rise. Christ blames the Pharisees, not for wearing them, but for affecting to have them broader than other people’s, Matt. 23:5. But when Bibles came to be common among them there was less occasion for this expedient. It was prudently and piously provided by the first reformers of the English church that then, when Bibles were scarce, some select portions of scripture should be written on the walls and pillars of the churches, which the people might make familiar to them, in conformity to this direction, which seems to have been binding in the letter of it to the Jews as it is to us in the intent of it, which is that we should endeavour by all means possible to make the word of God familiar to us, that we may have it ready to us upon all occasions, for our restraint from sin and our direction and excitement to our duty. It must be as that which is graven on the palms of our hands, always before our eyes. See Prov. 7:1-3. It is also intimated that we must never be ashamed to own our religion, nor to own ourselves under the check and government of it. Let it be written on our gates, and let every one that goes by our door read it, that we believe Jehovah to be God alone, and believe ourselves bound to love him with all our hearts.

III. A caution is here given not to forget God in a day of prosperity and plenty, v. 10-12. Here,

1. He raises their expectations of the goodness of their God, taking it for granted that he would bring them into the good land that he had promised (v. 10), that they should no longer dwell in tents as shepherds and poor travellers, but should settle in great and goodly cities, should no longer wander in a barren wilderness, but should enjoy houses will furnished and gardens well planted (v. 11), and all this without any care and expense of their own, which he here lays a great stress upon–Cities which thou buildest not, houses which thou filledst not, &c., both because it made the mercy really much more valuable that what they had come to them so cheaply, and yet, if they did not actually consider it, the mercy would be the less esteemed, for we are most sensible of the value of that which has cost us dear. When they came so easily by the gift they would be apt to grow secure, and unmindful of the giver.

2. He engages their watchfulness against the badness of their own hearts: Then beware, when thou liest safe and soft, lest thou forget the Lord, v. 12. Note,

(1.) In a day of prosperity we are in great danger of forgetting God, our dependence upon him, our need of him, and our obligations to him. When the world smiles we are apt to make our court to it, and expect our happiness in it, and so we forget him that his our only portion and rest. Agur prays against this temptation (Prov. 30:9): Lest I be full and deny thee.

(2.) There is therefore need of great care and caution at such a time, and a strict watch over our own hearts. “Then beware; being warned of your danger, stand upon your guard against it. Bind the words of God for a sign upon thy hand, for this end to prevent thy forgetting God. When thou art settled in Canaan forget not thy deliverance out of Egypt; but look to the rock out of which thou wast hewn. When thy latter end has greatly increased, remember the smallness of thy beginnings.”

IV. Some special precepts and prohibitions are here given, which are of great consequence.

1. They must upon all occasions give honour to God (v. 13): Fear him and serve him (for, if he be a Master, we must both reverence him and do his work); and swear by his name, that is, they must not upon any occasion appeal to any other, as the discerner of truth and avenger of wrong. Swear by him only, and not by an idol, or any other creature. Swear by his name in all treaties and covenants with the neighbouring nations, and do not compliment them so far as to swear by their gods. Swearing by his mane is sometimes put for an open profession of his name. Isa. 45:23, Every tongue shall swear, is expounded (Rom. 14:11), Every tongue shall confess to God.

2. They must not upon any occasion give that honour to other gods (v. 14): You shall not go after other gods, that is, “You shall not serve nor worship them;” for therein they went astray, they went a whoring from the true God, who in this, more than in any thing, is jealous god (v. 15): and the learned bishop Patrick observes here, out of Maimonides, that we never find, either in the law or the prophets, anger, or fury, or jealousy, or indignation, attributed to God but upon occasion of idolatry.

3. They must take heed of dishonouring God by tempting him (v. 16): You shall not tempt the Lord your God, that is, “You shall not in any exigence distrust the power, presence, and providence of God, nor quarrel with him,” which, if they indulged an evil heart of unbelief, they would take occasion to do in Canaan as well as in the wilderness. No change of condition will cure a disposition of murmur and fret. Our Saviour uses this caution as an answer to one of Satan’s temptations, with application to himself, Matt. iv. 7, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God, either by despairing of his power and goodness while we keep in the way of our duty, or by presuming upon it when we turn aside out of that way.

- Matthew Henry Commentary

<

D E U T E R O N O M Y

CHAPTER 6

Moses, in this chapter, goes on with his charge to Israel, to be sure to keep up their religion in Canaan. It is much the same with ch. iv. I. His preface is a persuasive to obedience, ver. 1-3. II. He lays down the great principles of obedience. The first truth to be believed, That God is one, ver. 4. The first duty to be done, To love him with all our heart, ver. 5. III. He prescribes the means for keeping up religion, ver. 6-9. IV. He cautions them against those things which would be the ruin of religion–abuse of plenty (ver. 10-12), inclination to idolatry (ver. 14, 15), and gives them some general precepts, ver. 13, 16-18. V. He directs them what instructions to give their children, ver. 20, &c.

1 Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:   2 That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.   3 Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey.

Observe here, 1. That Moses taught the people all that, and that only, which God commanded him to teach them, v. 1. Thus Christ’s ministers are to teach his churches all that he has commanded, and neither more nor less, Matt. 28:20.

2. That the end of their being taught was that they might do as they were taught (v. 1), might keep God’s statutes (v. 2), and observe to do them, v. 3. Good instructions from parents and ministers will but aggravate our condemnation if we do not live up to them.

3. That Moses carefully endeavoured to fix them for God and godliness, now that they were entering upon the land of Canaan, that they might be prepared for the comforts of that land, and fortified against the snares of it, and now that they were setting out in the world might set out well.

4. That the fear of God in the heart will be the most powerful principle of obedience: That thou mightest fear the Lord thy God, to keep all his statutes, v. 2.

5. The entail of religion in a family, or country, is the best entail: it is highly desirable that not we only, but our children, and our children’s children, may fear the Lord.

6. Religion and righteousness advance and secure the prosperity of any people. Fear God, and it shall be well with thee. Those that are well taught, if they do what they are taught, shall be well fed too, as Israel in the land flowing with milk and honey, v. 3.

- Matthew Henry Commentary

Proverbs 25:16 [show/hide]Proverbs 25:16 [16]If you have found honey, eat only enough for you, lest you have your fill of it and vomit it.

16 Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it.

Here, 1. We are allowed a sober and moderate use of the delights of sense: Hast thou found honey? It is not forbidden fruit to thee, as it was to Jonathan; thou maayest eat of it with thanksgiving to God, who, having created things grateful to our senses, has given us leave to make use of them. Eat as much as is sufficient, and no more. Enough is as good as a feast.

2. We are cautioned to take heed of excess. We must use all pleasures as we do honey, with a check upon our appetite, lest we take more than does us good and make ourselves sick with it. We are most in danger of surfeiting upon that which is most sweet, and therefore those that fare sumptuously every day have need to watch over themselves, lest their hearts be at any time overcharged. The pleasures of sense lose their sweetness by the excessive use of them and become nauseous, as honey, which turns sour in the stomach; it is therefore our interest, as well as our duty, to use them with sobriety.
- Matthew Henry Commentary

Proverbs 25:17 [show/hide]Proverbs 25:17 [17]Let your foot be seldom in your neighbor's house, lest he have his fill of you and hate you.

17 Withdraw thy foot from thy neighbour’s house; lest he be weary of thee, and so hate thee.

Here he mentions another pleasure which we must not take too much of, that of visiting our friends, the former for fear of surfeiting ourselves, this for fear of surfeiting our neighbour.

1. It is a piece of civility to visit our neighbours sometimes, to show our respect to them and concern for them, and to cultivate and improve mutual acquaintance and love, and that we may have both the satisfaction and advantage of their conversation.

2. It is wisdom, as well as good manners, not to be troublesome to our friends in our visiting them, not to visit too often, nor stay too long, nor contrive to come at meal-time, nor make ourselves busy in the affairs of their families; hereby we make ourselves cheap, mean, and burdensome. Thy neighbour, who is thus plagued and haunted with thy visits, will be weary of thee and hate thee, and that will be the destruction of friendship which should have been the improvement of it.

Post tres sæpe dies piscis vilescit et hospes–After the third day fish and company become distasteful. Familiarity breeds contempt. Nulli te facias nimis sodalem–Be not too intimate with any.

He that sponges upon his friend loses him. How much better a friend then is God than any other friend; for we need not withdraw our foot from his house, the throne of his grace (ch. 8:34); the oftener we come to him the better and the more welcome.
- Matthew Henry Commentary

Galatians 3:13 [show/hide]Galatians 3:13 [13]Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"-- (ESV)

Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree… Christ… made a curse for us.

Jesus was the Messiah; Jesus suffered in the place of cursing: but the curse He bore was our curse, the penalty for our misdeeds.

Listen to Martin Luther: ‘Think of the inestimable love of God,’ he says, ‘towards us unworthy and lost men. Our most merciful Father, seeing us to be oppressed with the curse of His broken law, and to be so holden under the same that we could never be delivered from it by our own power, sent His only Son, sent Him into the world and laid upon Him the sins of all men, saying, Be Thou Peter, that denier; be Thou Paul, the persecutor; be Thou David, that adulterer: in brief, be Thou the person who hath committed the sins of all men.’

So long as we remember that ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, that it was not an aloof, vengeful deity, being appeased by the substitution of an innocent victim in the place of a guilty race; so long as we remember that this is God’s action, we can hold with utter confidence to this wonderful truth, that Jesus handed Himself over to evil, Jesus took the curse to taste its awful desolation, and to drink its bitter dregs, for you and me.

That is why He died upon a cross: to make it crystal clear that He took responsibility for our wrongdoing: that He, the Lord of life, accepted death – that ultimate separation from God of which physical death is the sacrament – in order to deliver us from it forever.

He met the demands of the law which we have broken: He met them in full, at the cost of His own life. He stooped to death upon a cross, the place that was traditionally associated with the displeasure of God, to show for all time that He had stood in for man at the point of man’s greatest need. – E.M.B. Green: Crucified, 1964.
- Daily Thoughts From Keswick

Proverbs 25:19 [show/hide]Proverbs 25:19 [19]Trusting in a treacherous man in time of trouble is like a bad tooth or a foot that slips.

19 Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble is like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint.

1. The confidence of an unfaithful man (so some read it) will be like a broken tooth; his policy, his power, his interest, all that which he trusted in to support him in his wickedness, will fail him in time of trouble, Ps. 52:7 [show/hide]Psalm 52:7 [7]"See the man who would not make God his refuge, but trusted in the abundance of his riches and sought refuge in his own destruction!"
.

2. Confidence in an unfaithful man (so we read it), in a man whom we thought trusty and therefore depended on, but who proves otherwise; it proves not only unserviceable, but painful and vexatious, like a broken tooth, or a foot out of joint, which, when we put any stress upon it, not only fails us, but makes us feel from it, especially in time of trouble, when we most expect help from it; it is like a broken reed, Isa. 36:6 [show/hide]Isaiah 36:6 [6]Behold, you are trusting in Egypt, that broken reed of a staff, which will pierce the hand of any man who leans on it. Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust in him. (ESV)
. Confidence in a faithful God, in time of trouble, will not prove thus; on him we may rest and in him dwell at ease.
- Matthew Henry Commentary

Proverbs 25:20 [show/hide]Proverbs 25:20 [20]Whoever sings songs to a heavy heart is like one who takes off a garment on a cold day, and like vinegar on soda.

20 As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre, so is he that singeth songs to an heavy heart.

1. The absurdity here censured is singing songs to a heavy heart. Those that are in great sorrow are to be comforted by sympathizing with them, condoling with them, and concurring in their lamentation. If we take that method, the moving of our lips may assuage their grief (Job xvi. 5); but we take a wrong course with them if we think to relieve them by being merry with them, and endeavouring to make them merry; for it adds to their grief to see their friends so little concerned for them; it puts them upon ripping up the causes of their grief, and aggravating them, and makes them harden themselves in sorrow against the assaults of mirth.

2. The absurdities this is compared to are, taking away a garment from a man in cold weather, which makes him colder, and pouring vinegar upon nitre, which, like water upon lime, puts it into a ferment; so improper, so incongruous, is it to sing pleasant songs to one that is of a sorrowful spirit. Some read it in a contrary sense: As he that puts on a garment in cold weather warms the body, or as vinegar upon nitre dissolves it, so he that sings songs of comfort to a person in sorrow refreshes him and dispels his grief.
- Matthew Henry Commentary